The Gospels are Unreliable and the Gospel Jesus is not a Historical Person

In order to prove Christianity true, two central claims are necessary: the Gospel Jesus is a historical person and the Gospels are historically reliable. These are two related claims and both are verifiable or falsifiable. What follows demonstrates exactly why both claims are false.

Are the Gospels historically reliable? The answer is a resounding no and this much is admitted by the consensus:

Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.1

I’m sure Christians think the consensus says otherwise, since many of them seem to have done nothing but indulge their confirmation bias and read what conservative Christian scholars have had to say about this matter. Like the evangelists and first readers, these scholars want to confirm the Christian faith. They never intended to conduct honest research. For starters, had they actually intended to conduct honest research, in starting from the assumption that the Gospels are historically reliable, they would have quickly come to find out that the Gospels are not historically reliable at all.

To find out why this is the case, we need to discuss authorship, genre, external attestation, and internal consistency. If we want to find out whether we have a historically reliable piece of ancient writing, authorship is important. The Gospels are a curious case already because unlike the writings of ancient historians, the Gospels are, strictly speaking, anonymous.2 In the same vein, the genre of the Gospels has to be called into question because they’re not written as history. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem they were written as biographies. Even if we allow the assumptions that they were ancient biographies and are historically reliable, we’d still require external attestation–especially for the more fantastical bits found in the Gospels, e.g., Jesus walking on water. Also, if we allow for these assumptions, we’d want to see if the Gospels are internally consistent, i.e., do the Gospels cohere with one another. Once we discuss these points, we’ll arrive at the honest conclusion that the Gospels are historically unreliable.

I. Authorship

Matthew Ferguson, a Ph.D. graduate student in Classics at the University of California, Irvine, states:

The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure, Jesus Christ, to confirm the faith of their communities.3

Even conservative scholars like Craig Blomberg accept this conclusion, so if you’re the type of Christian to bypass that and say the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you might as well continue in your delusions. The related delusion is that these accounts were written by eyewitnesses. It is also a matter of consensus that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Bart Ehrman puts it succinctly:

To begin with, they are not written by eyewitness. We call these books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they are named after two of Jesus’ earthly disciples, Matthew the tax collector and John the beloved disciple, and two of the close companions of other apostles, Mark the secretary of Peter and Luke the traveling companion of Paul. But in fact the books were written anonymously—the authors never identify themselves—and they circulated for decades before anyone claimed they were written by these people. The first certain attribution of these books to these authors is a century after they were produced.4

That the authors don’t tell us who they are is a glaring issue because the authors of historical accounts identify themselves, e.g., Jospephus, Suetonius. It’s an issue, but it can be overcome. Tacitus, for instance, did not identify himself. Thus, this need not be the deciding factor in concluding that the Gospels are historically unreliable. The question remains, however, how exactly does one identify the author of a historical text. Though we’re not discussing external attestation and internal consistency just yet, these points relate to how we find out who the author of such a text is. It is widely recognized that there’s not one generally accepted method for doing this, but there are reliable ways. Matthew Ferguson outlines one way in which we identify the author of an ancient historical text:

Scholars generally look for both internal and external evidence when determining the author of an ancient text. The internal evidence consists of whatever evidence we have within a given text. This can include the author identifying himself, or mentioning persons and events that he witnessed, or using a particular writing style that we know to be used by a specific person, etc. The external evidence consists of whatever evidence we have outside a given text. This can include another author quoting the work, a later critic proposing a possible authorial attribution, what we know about the biography of the person to whom the work is attributed, etc.5

This is more or less the smoking gun. If we have either of these, but preferably both, we have no reason to doubt the authorship of the text. To go with an example you’re no doubt familiar with, no one can reasonably doubt the authorship of the authentic Pauline Epistles: 1 and 2 Corinthians , Galatians, Philemon, Philippians, Romans, and 1 Thessalonians. This can’t be reasonably doubted because Paul identifies himself within the text. Yet the ones that are doubted– Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus–are doubted for one of the reasons cited above. The non-authentic Pauline Epistles are written in a palpably different style that doesn’t match the style of the authentic ones. That there are only seven authentic Pauline Epistles is a matter of scholarly consensus as well. Ephesians was and still is disputed, but it is likelier that Ephesians is not authentic.

As with Tacitus, even if the author doesn’t identify himself within the text, there are other ways we can know who wrote the text. One way is to place one’s name in the genitive, as Tacitus did. This isn’t to say that the name in the genitive correctly attributes a work to said author in every case. This can still be doubted. The Gospels, on the other hand, fail in this regards. Ferguson states:

[T]he Gospels have an abnormal title convention, where they instead use the Greek preposition κατά, meaning “according to” or “handed down from,” followed by the traditional names. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is titled εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαίον (“The Gospel according to Matthew”). This is problematic, from the beginning, in that the earliest title traditions already use a grammatical construction to distance themselves from an explicit claim to authorship. Instead, the titles operate more as traditions, where the Gospels have been “handed down” by church traditions affixed to names of figures in the early church, rather than the author being clearly identified. In the case of Tacitus, none of our surviving titles says that the Histories or Annals were written “according to Tacitus” or “handed down from Tacitus.” Instead, we have clear attribution to Tacitus in one case, while only vague and ambivalent attributions in the titles of the Gospels.6

Aside from this, since the original manuscripts aren’t available, we don’t know whether these titles were original to the text. Bart Ehrman explains that the titles can’t be traced back to the original manuscripts and that it is highly likely that the titles were added afterward by scribes.7

The fact remains that there’s no external attestation. Pliny, for instance, confirms that Tacitus wrote Historae. No one confirms that Mark, for instance, wrote the Gospel of Mark. A lot more can be said on this topic and since I do not consider myself an authority on this topic, I’d advise Christians to read Ferguson’s “Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels” and also Keith Reich’s series on Gospel Authorship. He has a Ph.D. in Religion/Focus New Testament from Baylor University.

The problem is the Christian’s starting point. Their claim is fixed and is therefore the “truth claim.” They then try to find only that evidence which seems to agree with they’re presumed conclusion. This is confirmation bias. This is what I mean when I call someone intellectually dishonest. They do not research first and then conclude. They draw a comforting conclusion and then seek evidence; some don’t even care about evidence or change the meaning of evidence so that it is easier for them to disqualify unfavorable facts. At any rate, the authorship of the Gospels is a settled matter: the Gospels are anonymous works and aside from the pretended expertise of layman and the books of dishonest apologists like Lee Strobel, there’s no way around that.

II. Genre

When concerning the genre of the Gospels, it is not straightforwardly obvious to Christians that they are not historical accounts. Christians with more literalist bents can’t see it any other way. This goes back to starting with a comforting conclusion. The conclusion is that Jesus was god and that therefore, the acts attributed to him in the Gospels actually happened. Otherwise, it would be difficult to conclude that he was god incarnate. Take away all of these fantastical acts and all you have is an itinerant first century preacher. This is precisely who the historical Jesus was according to the majority of scholars. They have, in other words, favored a minimal historicist conclusion. They have, for all intents and purposes, stripped Jesus of the divinity he demonstrated in the stories told by the Gospels. In any case, the Gospels aren’t historical accounts. Matthew Ferguson outlines the criteria historical texts meet:

The genre of ancient historical prose has key features that are crucial to understanding which works belong to the category and why they are more trustworthy than sources that do not. It is not enough for a text to simply talk about things that took place in the past, even when the content deals with real people and locations. A historical text must investigate and probe these matters, discussing the research process involved, so that it does not merely provide a story, but a plausible interpretation of what took place.8

Right away, if we call to mind the content of the Gospels, we will quickly notice that the Gospels meet none of these criteria. They don’t accurately represent the past events in question. In fact, the Gospels embellish and mythologize and thus, make it quite difficult to find the historical tidbits contained within them. They also do not investigate these events or offer plausible interpretations of what happened. More specifically, they don’t explain how or why a given event happened. Ferguson continues:

As someone who studies ancient historical writing in the original Greek and Latin languages, it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient prose novels. In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted (and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources), the authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple “whom Jesus loved,” the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author). Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. Accordingly, the Gospels all fall short from the criteria that can be used to categorize a piece of historical prose.9

This is the arguably the primary reason they’re historically unreliable: they don’t even qualify as historical accounts in the first place. If we cannot establish that these are historical accounts, then we can’t even begin to talk about whether they’re historically reliable. It stands to reason that they have to be proven historical texts before we begin to have a conversation about whether the text honors what actually took place and whether it adequately explains and interprets these events. A Christian can claim, for example, that Jesus walking on water is the “truth claim.” Yet this doesn’t read as a historical account, much less a reliable one. We have an isolated event that is told in a story-like manner in where the writer narrates his account from an omniscient point of view. There is no investigation, no explanation of why this happened, and no plausible interpretation for this rare feat.

Aside from that, there is absolutely zero outside attestation of this event. There can’t be any because this anonymous writer is telling a story that conveniently took place in a storm. Therefore, no one could have seen it happen and thus, there cannot be any extra-biblical attestation. There’s a much more plausible explanation for this story and I’ll be sure to return to this later, but as far as the historical reliability of this story, it is safe to conclude it was dead on arrival. The notion that Jesus actually walked on water is beyond laughable in any circle outside of one comprised of deluded believers. Furthermore, there’s no research they will find to adequately defend their view. They are, in other words, left with no warrant or justification for holding said view. They are therefore left with no claim to the truth or factuality of their claim, not just for the miracle in question, but also for the other miracles mentioned in the Gospels.

Though there is a clear issue in identifying biographies in the Greco-Roman period, as with the criteria of historical texts, the Gospels also fail to match the criteria of historical biography in that period. The reasoning here is quite involved and once again, I’d advise Christians to read Ferguson’s “Are the Gospels Biographies?: The Spectrum of Ancient Βίοι,” which is cited below. For our purposes though, it is useful to note Ferguson’s observations concerning the type of biographies the Gospels attempt to be–namely ones that focus on Jesus’ moral character and personality:

The Gospels operated, at least originally, more as “open texts,” since much of their content was adapted and reworked into later versions. For example, the Gospel of Matthew borrows from as much as 80% of the verses in Mark, and Luke likewise borrows from 65% of the material in Mark. This is not typical of historical and scholarly biographies, which had greater authorial control, such as those of Plutarch, who does not merely copy his material from earlier works.

The Gospels do not discuss their sources or methodology, which is a feature of more historical and scholarly biographies. Instead, like the popular biographies of Homer, Aesop, and Alexander the Great, they are less critical, more hagiographical, and include more legends and myth-making.10

That last point speaks to the exact genre of the Gospels. As they stand, they are mythological hagiographies. As a point of comparison, Ferguson goes on to speak of Alexander the Great, since myths about him became ubiquitous shortly after his death.

As Kris Komarnitsky discusses in “Myth Growth Rates and the Gospels,” fictional biographies emerged about Alexander the Great within half a century of his death, just as the Gospels were written about Jesus roughly 40-60 years after his death. As the comparison with the Alexander Romance shows, a biography is not historically reliable simply because it is written only a few decades after the subject’s death, since many popular ancient biographies were written within that span, even for historical figures like Alexander the Great, and yet they included large amounts of legendary development. This form of biography likewise does not engage in the source analysis and methodology that is necessary to make an ancient text historically reliable.11

Ferguson eventually concludes that the Gospels resemble the Septuagint more than Greco-Roman biographies.

It should also be noted that, unlike historical Graeco-Roman biographies, the Septuagint is not as methodologically rigorous, and almost never discusses the sources or the methods of investigation used to construct narratives. This may very likely account for why the Gospels are not similar to ancient Graeco-Roman historiography. Since historical biographies, such as those of Plutarch and Suetonius, overlapped with this category, the Gospels are not very similar to them as well, though they may share features with popular Graeco-Roman biographies, such as those of the Alexander Romance.12

As stated earlier, unless you’re a conservative New Testament scholar, this is straightforwardly accepted. Of course, this isn’t widely accepted by Christians, but that’s because this information isn’t as accessible as misinformation. Apologetic works like Strobel’s “The Case For Christ” are much more available. Furthermore, this sort of information isn’t openly discussed in church or even in seminaries. Some seminaries will brainwash Christians into thinking all of this is irrelevant. Unfortunately, it isn’t–most especially when they’re trying to argue that the Gospels relay historical events. The Gospels do not speak of a historical account.

III. External Attestation

As stated earlier, we cannot have external attestation of Jesus walking on water. According to the myth, it happened during a storm, so there’s no conceivable way an ancient historian would have been out in the storm seeing this all unfold. One might argue, however, that there is historical attestation for the existence of Jesus. In this section, I simply want to throw the external attestations into disarray. I, in other words, want Christians to question Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and so on. I want them to realize that these external attestations aren’t as reliable as they’ve been led to believe.

For starters, Christians who think that the miraculous acts found in the Gospels are historical are confronted by an unfavorable fact: none of the extra-biblical sources confirm any of Jesus’ miracles. My purposes here aren’t so much to show that they fail to mention any of his miraculous acts, but that they might also fail to mention him altogether.

A. Josephus

We’ll begin by discussing the Testimonium Flavianum. There isn’t much debate about it’s authenticity. Christian apologists will have us believe that, but there have been a few nails in this coffin for quite some time. Richard Carrier put the last nail in the coffin with his paper, Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus. Before we go there, allow me to quote Carrier who speaks of another important paper that Christians will likely never read:

Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence.13

Part of the reason Carrier doesn’t cite it in his own paper is because Carrier’s conclusion is markedly different from Goldberg’s. Carrier’s conclusion addresses James the brother of Jesus. The James passage isn’t “almost universally” acknowledged as authentic as some have claimed, and that has never been the case; more importantly, because of Carrier’s paper that will never be the case. So what is Carrier’s conclusion?

It is more probable that the phrase, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, the name for whom was James,” originated in an accidental interpolation in the Caesarean library than that it came from Josephus’s hand. Without “who was called Christ,” we have no reference to this passage in Origen at all, and we have no evidence that the phrase was ever in Josephus, as the silence of Luke-Acts, Origen, and every other author, including Hegesippus (whose account shows no knowledge of the events related in AJ 20.200) suggests. Origen does not quote Josephus when he, in three places, uses the phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” because in none of these places does he quote or refer to other Josephan material (be it a distinctive construction like “the name for whom was James,” or content particular to AJ 20.200). Rather, he uses a story clearly found only in the Christian author Hegesippus, who also relates a story unknown to Luke and, therefore, probably a second-century invention, as its internal absurdities further suggest. Origen never claims that his material originated from the AJ, and Eusebius could not find it anywhere in Josephus’s writings either, so he simply quoted Origen, but passed it off as a Josephan quotation. Eusebius is the first to notice any mention of Christ in AJ 20.200; unlike Origen, he is the first to quote it; he is the first to declare it a reference to the same James. It seems highly likely, then, that τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (“who was called Christ”) is an accidental scribal interpolation or innocent emendation, and never appeared in the original text of Josephus.14

He also concludes that the passage was likely speaking of Jesus ben Damneus and his brother James. Ananus ordered that James be stoned to death; Ananus was soon replaced by Jesus ben Damneus–perhaps a punishment for killing an innocent man. Josephus discusses this in the same narrative a few lines after purportedly mentioning “James the Just” who was “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.“ Therefore, it is highly probable that he originally spoke of Jesus ben Damneus and his brother James. This is a well-supported conclusion–especially when considering that the death by stoning of “James the Just” is not corroborated anywhere else. Hegesippus wrote a myth concerning the stoning of James; however, this myth is markedly different. In this myth, James the Just is thrown from the roof of a temple and then stoned; however, that doesn’t result in his death. He dies when he is struck in the head with a staff.15 Also, there is no mention of Ananus, and that is perhaps the key difference.

Josephus does mention the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist, but he disagrees with the Gospels on some details, e.g., why he was killed; where he was imprisoned. Ultimately, the historicity of John’s baptisms doesn’t imply that he baptized Jesus. Historical people and places are commonly incorporated into myths, e.g., Darius I in the book of Daniel; Pharaoh (which one?) in Exodus. Therefore, it is our right to ignore Josephus’ mention of John the Baptist given these reasons.

B. Tacitus

In order to understand the conclusion made, it is useful to quote the passage in question. Then you’ll see why some scholars have concluded that Tacitus is relaying hearsay.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind (Annals 15:44, c.a. 116 AD).16

Scholars generally consider this passage to be both authentic and historically reliable. However, there are some issues with this source, namely that the passage may have been hearsay. R.T. France states that Tacitus repeated what he heard from Christians. More specifically, he stated:

The brief notice in Tacitus Annals xv.44 mentions only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. Nor is there any reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information-it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.17

Also, Tacitus would have known that Pilate was a prefect and not a procurator. At best, the passage describes an event that involved early Christians and it also establishes that a man known as Christus was crucified by Pilate. It doesn’t establish that he resurrected. It doesn’t establish that he performed miracles. It doesn’t establish that he walked on water. It doesn’t establish that he ascended to the right hand of the father. It is not corroboration for the Gospel Jesus.

C. Pliny the Younger

Pliny’s letter to Trajan provided details concerning the trials Pliny conducted. Though the letter mentions Christ, the letter gives more insight on the practices of early Christians and the attitudes Roman officials had toward them. Like the previous sources, it doesn’t give us any information on a historical Jesus nor the divinity of Jesus as described in the Gospels.

D. Suetonius

The following is Roman historian Suetonius’ reference: “Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit (Life of Claudius, 110 CE).” The translation is: “Claudius drove the Jews out of Rome, who at the suggestion of Chrestus were constantly rioting.” The reference doesn’t say Christus. It clearly says Chrestus. However, Jesus could not have been alive at this time because Claudius reigned from the years 41-54. Christians believe that Christ was crucified in the year 33 C.E. Thus, if he existed, he was not alive at this time and therefore, the passage isn’t referring to the Gospel Jesus or the individual he was based on. Like the previous three, it does nothing to establish his divinity.

E. Thallus/Julius Africanus

This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For….how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?18

This would no doubt be of interest had it been written about closer to the event. Unfortunately, the consensus is that Thallus wrote in the second century. Richard Carrier states:

This is all we get. It isn’t clear what Thallus actually said, or whether he even mentioned Jesus at all. Africanus is merely criticising the possibility that the darkness at the death of Christ was a solar eclipse, and thus a natural rather than a supernatural event–an attack addressed in the Apology of Tertullian, and voiced by the Jews in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which may have been written in the time of Africanus. Although this implies that Thallus mentioned the death of Christ in some way, it does not entail it. For Thallus may have simply recorded an eclipse that occurred around the time that Christ was believed to have died, with Africanus connecting the events on his own. We do not have the context of this quote, and we do not know what else Africanus said about this event or about Thallus. Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.19

Carrier goes on to speak of Phelgon of Tralles. His analysis is interesting and to my mind, thorough and conclusive. Anyone who’s interested can read his full analysis which is cited below.

Of these references, two, three, seven (?) and eight relate to the figure in the Bible. However, the other references do not relate to him in the slightest; (1) doesn’t because it specifically says he had five disciples and not the 12 mentioned in the Gospels, and (8) doesn’t relate to him because it says that Mary slept with a soldier named Pantera–thus making Jesus his bastard son rather than someone born of a virgin. Number seven speaks of a Jesus who was stoned and then hanged. The Gospels do not corroborate the stoning account in Sanhedrin 43. It is obvious that Christians are biased when appealing to this source. Scholars are divided concerning the relationship these references have to a historical Jesus. Moreover, they consider the passages to be a response to Christian proselytism.

Of course, there are many other sources according to apologetic sites, but like the above, which are the most commonly cited, they are all problematic. More importantly, none of them establish Jesus’ divinity; none of them attest to his miracles and fantastical acts.

IV. Internal Consistency

To demonstrate why the Gospels aren’t internally consistent, I need only present a series of examples. No Christian to date has solved this conundrum and that’s because they simply can’t. Bock’s harmonizing tactics don’t work because in many of these cases, it makes for one heck of a confused narrative.

Did Jesus carry the cross the entire way or did Simon of Cyrene carry it for him; Mark 15:21 or Luke 23:26 and John 19:17? Did one robber mock him or did both; Matthew 27:44 or Luke 23:39-40? Did the curtain rip before or after; Mark 15:37-38 or Luke 23:45-46? Who went to the tomb–did Mary Magdalene go alone or did she have company and if so, how much company; Mark 16:1-3 (Mary Magdalene goes with Mary and Salome) or Matthew 28:1(Mary Magdalene goes with just Mary) or John 20:1 (she goes alone)? Was there one man or one angel in the tomb (Mark 16:5 or Matthew 28:2-3) or were there two men or two angels (Luke 24:4 or John 20:11-12)? Was the stone rolled away or not; Mark 16:3-4 or Matthew 28:2? Where’s this earthquake in the other Gospels by the way? Were the disciples to stay in Jerusalem or were they to go to Galilee (Mark 16:7 and Matthew 28:7 or the silence of Luke and John on whether or not to go to Galilee)? Did the women tell the disciples or did they stay silent? As Ehrman says, it depends which Gospel you read.

Given what’s outlined above, the authorship and genre of the Gospels are dubious. In other words, we don’t know who the authors actually were. Furthermore, despite Christian pretenses, they aren’t historical texts or biographies. They are embellished hagiographies that are littered with myths. There’s also no external attestation or corroboration of any of the more fantastical elements in the Gospels; also, corroboration of the more grounded elements are questionable. To top it all off, the Gospels do not cohere with one another in a few key places. So aside from the fact that Jesus did not walk on water, Jesus didn’t do anything the Gospels say he did. The Christian must either a) provide warrant for their opinion; b) provide justification for their opinion; or c) demonstrate that their opinion aligns most closely to the facts or is a reiteration of some truth. In this case, their opinion is untenable.

As stated earlier, I said I would return to the story of Jesus walking on water. Despite what some modern Christians think, it can be argued that this was never meant to be taken literally. Likewise, this story may have been written as allegory.

It is, as German theologian David Friedrich Strauss wrote in his two-volume book The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet), myth. Not “myth” as in complete fiction, but, similar to the story of Jesus’ resurrection, parable with the intent of conveying a deeper meaning, or lesson. It is a history-like story trying to convey some truth. It is, in other words, allegorical.

In ancient cultures and religions, and very much so in Christianity, it was common to liken tough times to stormy seas that were life-threatening This can be seen in instances of the Dioscuri, who delivered shipmen from stormy seas, as seen in the Homeric Hymns. Or even with Archilochus or Alcaeus comparing the troubles of tyranny to stormy seas. The purpose was to show that one, and only one, could rise above the trials and tribulations of life. That person was Jesus of Nazareth, and if others would follow him, they, too, would rise above all the issues that faced the people of that time.20

In fact, this sort of figurative talk for so called trials and tribulations is alive and well in the modern day. Christians still talk about deserts and storms when speaking of their problems or tests of faith. In fact, the story of Jesus walking on water is often used in one sermon after another in relation to the struggles one is currently facing. The disciples represent the Christian. They are, in other words, alone and helpless. Though they have each other’s company, none of them can stop what comes next. The congregation can’t exactly help the Christian out of their current jam. But along comes Christ as a phantom on the stormy sea; he has come to rescue them and get them out of the jam. I can’t for the life of me see how anyone would come to read this story literally and consider it a piece of historical retelling.

In any case, anyone willing to be honest would see that the story of Jesus walking on water isn’t historical. It’s not based in fact nor is there any evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, there is incontrovertible evidence to support what I’ve offered here–even a charitable interpretation available to Christians. That the story of Jesus walking on water was meant to be considered an allegory in no way implies that they should renounce their beliefs altogether; it in no way implies that Christianity is false. In fact, there are plenty of Christians who favor this interpretation and have no issue with its ahistorical content. Or perhaps, to their mind, it isn’t even an attempt at historical retelling; it’s, in other words, non-historical since the story wasn’t meant to be read that way.

Ultimately, my purpose was to demonstrate the historical unreliability of the Gospels and by extension, the non-historicity of the Gospel Jesus. That’s the Jesus modern Christians need to exist in order for them to assert that their beliefs are true. These two claims are absolutely essential to Christianity and no amount of pseudo-philosophical language can change that. Some Christians may be, for instance, of the Van Tillian flavor and argue that I need to either firmly establish my entire epistemology or debase their epistemology in order to make my claims. They’re essentially moving the goalposts and making Christianity as abstract as possible, so that it is easier to sidestep the questions I’ve just answered.

15 Now some persons belonging to the seven [Jewish] sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Commentaries, asked James: “What is the door of Jesus? And he replied that he was the Savior. In consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of one to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said, “A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.”

They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said, “We entreat you, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all who have come here for the day of the Passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to you; since we, as well as all the people, bear you testimony that you are just, and show partiality to none. Therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to you. Take your stand, then, upon the summit of the Temple, that from that elevated spot you may be clearly seen, and your words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the Passover, all the tribes have congregated here, and some of the Gentiles also.”

The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the Temple, and cried aloud to him, and said, “O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people are in error, and follow Jesus the crucified, do tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice, “Why ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He Himself sits in heaven, at the right hand of the great power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven.”

And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the son of David,” then 30. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.3–18 (SC 31:86–90; trans. NPNF2 1:207–8, modified; my emphasis). again the Pharisees and scribes said to one another, “We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him.” And they cried aloud, and said, “Oh! Oh! The just man himself is in error.” Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings.” So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another, “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said, “I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, to whom testimony is born by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying, “Stop! What are you doing!? The just man is praying for us.” But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.

And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.

68 comments

Consensus? That’s your justification for calling 5000 years of recorded history a lie? The better question is, “Were you there?” If not, you have less historical documentation from which to make your assumptions about Christ’s life than the average local minister. You have absolutely nothing to prove you are correct other than the writings of modern day cynics, unbelievers, skeptics and other assorted disgruntled humans. This is hardly the kind of “proof” that any reasonable person could use and still come to your conclusions. And certainly their writings are nothing of value to anyone who is seriously seeking the truth because most begin with personal assumptions based on their own “feelings” versus the eyewitness accounts of the 12 men who lived with Jesus, 11 of whom were viciously martyred, rather than deny their faith in Christ as the Son of God. You are in no position to have any opinion on these matters as you are even farther down the food chain than those you so blithely quote. God is good. That’s all you need to know. Now go and have a wonderful day because God loves you too.

I find it laughable that you think I should respond to this condescension. You obviously didn’t read what I wrote because you’re still assuming the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses. And you’re assuming skeptics and atheists are disgruntled humans, and that I’m further down the food chain. So you’re insulting me right off the bat. Now go have a great day because there’s no god to love you. He doesn’t exist.

I didn’t expect you to reply. I expected you to use your heart, instead of your head, and give yourself a break! Stop being so hard on yourself. There is a God, He loves you and, unlike nothingness, He makes people VERY happy. Join the fun! You have NOTHING to loose but your pain and self-doubt. Trust me, whether or not you want to believe it (or, more likely, whether you’ve been told otherwise) you ARE worthy of being created by an Almighty God who literally loves you. Just open your HEART to His love and you’ll be happy too! It’s that simple. God bless and good luck.

Stop the preaching. Been there, done that. Christianity is false. Your preachy nonsense doesn’t work on me. I don’t think with my heart; no one does. I’m happy and confident and perhaps to a degree greater than you are. Don’t assume things about me because I don’t believe as you do. It’s condescending. Keep that up and I’ll be sure to delete every comment you submit. You may not see it as such, but assuming that much is disrespectful.

Um, where are you getting this figure from? The overwhelming majority of biblical scholars and Jewish rabbis today openly concede the Pentateuch is geopolitical myth, an origin dream devised by Judean priests (from Judah) to capitalise on the weakened Kingdom of Israel after it’s sacking in 722 BCE. It is not until about halfway through the Book of Kings when it actually becomes a reliable historical source concerning the early Hebrews. Rabbi’s admit this, KQ. Rabbi’s are quite open about this.

And even if Rabbis weren’t, archaeology does not corroborate the kingdoms of David and Solomon. It doesn’t help us locate historical Patriarchs. It also doesn’t corroborate the battle at Jericho, as accounted in the Bible. As stated, only after Kings do we get anything of historical value.

That’s ridiculous! Under that guise, you could declare that ALL written history was a geographical myth or a figment of someone’s imagination. Sorry, that doesn’t fly! FYI. The Sumerians of Mesopotamia, which included Jews, were first to emerge in recorded history in 3500 BC (BTW, only non-Christians use BCE. It’s use is just another pathetic, transparent, and disingenuous ploy, by unbelievers, to diminish Christ’s importance as the central figure to all of human history), was 5000 years ago. I guess you didn’t know that.

And why would I think other histories are myth if they can be corroborated? The Jewish origin tale has been known to be myth for nearly three generations now. This is not new information. Did you know that in 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the primary American professional body for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology simply because the bible had been determined to be (beyond all doubt) an entirely unreliable historical source to direct research into the early Jews, pre-Babylonian captivity.

Just so you know, the only area where there is still a live debate regarding biblical archaeology is whether or not Judah had an urban society in the 9th Century BCE, which relates to the narrative concerning the United Kingdom. That’s it. That’s all there is. The Patriarchs, Egypt, Moses, Exodus and Conquest are dead subjects in the field of serious archaeology. They were dismissed as myth decades ago, and nothing has changed in that time to alter this consensus. As Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, announced recently:

Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.

To repeat that last line: “nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”

Good Lord! How hopeless and depressing your baseless, non-Chistian beliefs are! Changing the name of a society means nothing more than it was overrun by non-believers, just as has been the case during the last 50 years, with most “academic” organizations. They are now nothing more than shams. Their “consensus” only proves that they have an anti-Christian agenda, and nothing more.

Ah the persecution complex. Newsflash, not everyone is against you. The rest of your comment is an unqualified opinion–so unqualified that it doesn’t even merit refutation. Like Christ Centered Teaching, if you have nothing intelligent or relevant to add to the comment section, I reserve the right to prohibit you from commenting. I’ve been respectful enough to let you and CCT voice your opinions, regardless of how irrelevant and, frankly speaking, stupid they are. I am under no obligation to do that. Set aside the persecution complex and learn. Then again, you’re anti-academic. That explains a lot!

K.Q., you didn’t challenge anything about my post. You made one assertion after another, and all of them were thoroughly dealt with. Upon dealing with them, you proceeded to throw a tantrum. This isn’t a debate, since a debate implies two or more participants that a) are willing to listen to one another b) are knowledgeable about the topic at hand. You’ve failed in both respects. The post isn’t my area of expertise, but the experts are cited in the post; you’ve dealt with absolutely none of what they said. The only untenable opinions here are yours.

I guess you didn’t know that your “history” is church myth. Only non-Christians use BCE? So I guess the professors that identify as Christians are actually non-Christians in secret. Do yourself the favor of coming here to learn rather than impose unsubstantiated belief. This isn’t your church. There are a few informed people respectfully expressing historical and archaeology facts. Saying “nuh uh, you’re trying to diminish Christ’s importance” is simply closed-minded. If that’s how you are and you wish to remain that way, stop commenting.

No. You only have a setting of writings written 30-90 years after the alleged events. Everything else written is based upon that. King Herod died 10 years before the census. Both events are documented. The gospels are written “according to” this means whoever wrote it down is disowning authorship. Do other independent sources that predate the “gospels” speak of jesus or his teachings?

Isn’t that what you’re doing by making stupid comments on blogs you don’t like? If you don’t like the content, you can simply leave. Honestly, if you don’t have anything intelligent to contribute in these comments, I’ll simply stop approving them.

If consensus is what ultimately matters, then here are plenty of facts compliments of Wikipedia.

“Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheistscomprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world’s population, whereas people without a religion (atheism isn’t a religion) comprise anywhere from 10% to 22% of the world’s population.[1][2][3][4] Several polls have been conducted by Gallup International: in their 2012 poll of 57 countries, 13% of respondents were “convinced atheists” and in their 2015 poll of 65 countries 11% were “convinced atheists”.[4][5] In Scandinavia, the Netherlandsand East Asia, and particularly in China, atheists and the nonreligious are the majority.[5] Of the global atheist and nonreligious population, 76% reside in Asia and the Pacific, while the remainder reside in Europe (12%), North America (5%), Latin America and the Caribbean (4%), sub-Saharan Africa (2%) and the Middle East and North Africa (less than 1%).[3] In Africa and South America, atheists are typically in the single digits.[5] According to Pew Research Center’s 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world’s population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated.[6] Furthermore, the global study noted that many of the unaffiliated, which include atheists and agnostics, still have various religious beliefs and practices.[3]”

This isn’t an intelligent comment. Wikipedia is not a good source as it is often out of date and it is written and edited by, general speaking, everyday people.

In any case, scholarly consensus is not like demographics. These demographics you speak of are about non-belief; when scholars come to a consensus, they’re agreeing on what constitutes knowledge rather than belief or lack thereof. The consensus is that evolution is a well-supported theory in science; the same is said of the Big Bang. The consensus is that the historical evidence for the Gospel Jesus is severely lacking; in fact, it’s just not available at all. Also, if your comment was intelligent, you would have been able to anticipate my response, namely that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. So if you really want to disingenuously conflate demographics with scholarly consensus, you have to admit that what your belief isn’t true either. You’ve mistaken consensus for an argument from popularity. They’re not the same thing.

Stupid question. There is the total number of protein molecules per cell and the number of different proteins in a cell. Your question makes no sense. You’re just trying hard to make me believe you’re intelligent. Still a red herring because it has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

3.So you agree with Darwin’s concern regarding morality?
His concern for mankind was rooted in his observation that ,as Tennyson put it,”nature is red in tooth and claw.”
Right and wrong are then relative, not absolute.
But, as an evolutionist, you will insist mankind can develope moral

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. Darwin wasn’t infallible. Evolution has developed as a theory since his day. Darwin also wasn’t an ethicist. I would not look to him for advice about morality. But while we’re at it, people have argued that morality can be explained in terms of evolution. See Frans de Waal. Another red herring. This, once again, has nothing to do with my post.

Con’t-
…can develope morals thru intellect.
How then can you answer the existence of evil?
Some people clearly choose to do evil because it pleases them to do evil.
As you said earlier, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. But acctually, Islam is the fastest growing FORCED religion in the world.
Islam is therefore evil, yet the fastest growing religion/political ideology in the world.
Islam is immoral.
That blows a great big hole in the evolutionary process of origin of morality.

Your question is loaded. I can, like others have, write an essay about why evil exists. I can talk about small amygdalae in vicious criminals, child abuse, economic pressures, etc. It goes far beyond people “choosing” to do evil. So by extension, if I felt you were capable of actually listening to me, I would debase the Libertarian free will you’re depending on to make your case. And Christianity isn’t a forced religion? Do Christians not prey on the vulnerable? Are you not mandated to spread the Gospel? Worst infraction of all, do you not brainwash children–i.e., teach them *what* to think rather than *how* to think? As for your last sentence, that’s a straw man. You’re assuming I agree with that line of thinking. I don’t.

Besides, Ben Stein has Dawkins admitting he thinks DNA information had to originate from a source outside the evolutionary process.
There is no model in nature for adding information, let alone 3.2 billion bits of genetic information we find in each strand of human DNA.

The reason Dawkins admits that is, once again, going over your head. Evolution is a biological process. The emergence of DNA is a chemical process. Want to learn about it, research tRNA, though I’m quite sure you won’t understand that either.

Yes. It’s a proven fraud. This is a red herring and has nothing to do with my post. The only people who think the Shroud is authentic are Catholics. Protestants, Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians don’t give a donkey’s behind about the shroud. Facts hurt, I know.

Not a tantrum. An equal response to your assertion.
Right off the beginning, you assert :
“Are the Gospels historically reliable? The answer is a resounding no and this much is admitted by the consensus:”

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis.”
I think my analysis matched your the arrogance of such an outrageous assertion.
You obviously are extremely biased.
Later

Right. You read the opening sentence and threw a tantrum; big difference. I opened with that because that’s the claim I was looking to substantiate and given the scholarship in the post, I think I accomplished that. And you’re not biased? Why else are you here commenting on an atheist’s page? In any case, this isn’t about a bias. This is about a fair analysis. I know what your apologists say; they’re not convincing. I know about Q (quella), the proposed Aramaic gospel that Mark translated into Greek. Yet there’s no copy of Q and it’s likely an authentic copy will never be found. Attempted reconstructions are based on your favorite word, conjecture. People disagree with your worldview; out of the two of us, you’re the only one that’s bothered by that. I’ve not gone to your page and commented against anything, and believe me, I could. I simply don’t feel the need to. My post isn’t about de-converting Christians; it’s about opposing two common claims, claims that people make way too often, and this without any attempts at substantiating them. I believe I succeed at doing substantiating the counter claim. If you don’t think that, show me why. Stop giving me these short, useless comments.

Atheist here. I wonder, can we claim something is not historical because author does not write historically by today’s standards? The Iliad is written completely in verse and does not criticise history. These two developments are concreted in Western historiography by of Ranke and Hegel. So is the critic such as, ‘The Gospels do not discuss their sources or methodology’ valid?

To your first question, we can’t. However, the scholars I cited are not holding them to today’s standards. In fact, today’s standards are different, far and wide. Let’s consider why.

For one, we have newspapers, news outlets, cameras to record events, written transcripts, and so on. Historians tasked with writing about our times have different methods and source materials. So there’s no way we can hold the Gospels to today’s standards, and that’s not what these scholars have done.

What they have done is compare the Gospels to written histories that are contemporary and by contemporary, I mean written histories during the time of the Gospels, before their time, and shortly after. Philo and Josephus are much more rigorous.

Also, keep in mind, I am not saying there wasn’t a historical Jesus, i.e., a person on whom the Gospel figure was based on. What I am saying is that the historical Jesus was not the Gospel Jesus, which is the same as saying that Jesus–as depicted in the Gospels–is not a historical person. This isn’t a strange argument because other than really conservative scholars and apologists, no one can honestly make that claim after considering the sources available. It is, however, a central claim in Christianity. To my mind, for Christianity to be true, it is necessary that the Gospel Jesus be historical and if you really want to get technical, it is necessary for the Jesus featured in the Gospel of John to be historical. That technicality leads to problems, not least of which being that the Gospel of John was written some 60-70 years after his death.

Now, that the Gospels don’t discuss their sources is valid because, unlike the Iliad, Christians are claiming that the Gospels record history; they say the same of Acts. A lot of their contents are fantastical, so the corroborative sources would have to attest to that. Yet they don’t. Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, says nothing about him. Josephus says next to nothing. There were historians, polemicists, poets, satirists and so on who were his contemporaries and their silence is curious given what the Gospels say. We can get into the fact that these Gospels are the proto-Orthodox favorites that endured; there were many more gospels in the first century, a lot of which stemmed from gnosticism. If the Gospel Jesus was historical, Christianity would have been absolutely clearcut. Yet Paul talks about his opponents, especially in Corinthians and Colossians; that speaks to how many different versions we already had just a mere 20 years after his death. These are all points that have their own scholarly underpinnings.

Excellent piece of writing. And don’t worry about CCT. He/She is well-known across fundy and atheist blogs alike, is a laugh a minute and although not a very scholarly term the epithet: Giant Arse-Hat comes to mind.

You know a writer in trouble when he starts off with Matthew Ferguson:

“Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.”

This is a false dichotomy. “Historical analysis” is not the same as “historically true writing about the past,” which the evangelists DID aim at. They were not academic historians, but that does not mean they were freely making stuff up, either. Ferguson makes a big deal about tendatious differences between the genre of history and the genre of gospel out of intellectual confusion.

“Confirming Christian faith” is also squishy. “The witnesses’ aim was to confirm that he saw the accused murder the deceased” may be entirely true, without in any way impugning his or her testimony. People often try to convince others because they themselves have been convinced: that is not inherently irrational or unholy.

The last sentence is another non sequitur. Jesus’ disciples were young, certainly, and could easily have lived until the date at which the gospels were written. I KNOW people in similiar situations who witness to events they saw 70 years ago in their youths (World War II vets, etc) — plus Mark may have been written rather earlier.

In addition, there is a great deal of evidence (Bauckham, Marshall) that the gospels DO present eyewitness accounts.

There are many patently false claims in this article. It is not true that “the authors of historical accounts” always identify themselves — for instance, the authors of the Analects, a very similar work to the gospels, do not. But Bauckham argues that there are sufficient clues about the identities of two or three evangelists.

I have refuted quite a few claims by Ferguson and Carrier at christthetao.blogspot.com, and will add more in my new book. It isn’t hard. Nor, for that matter, is rebutting Ehrman, who is often remarkably sloppy when he has a point to make. The normal response, to which I have become rather accustomed from some quarters (I don’t mean from Ehrman), is a stream of personal insults. But the facts are stubborn things.

We all know you have a hard on for Matthew Ferguson. I’ve spoken to you before and don’t enjoy it. In your delusions, you might think it’s because you’re so intelligent and informed; you’re not. Loftus and Ferguson have dealt with you rather handily. I’ll leave it to my readers to go check out your blog and theirs to see what I’m talking about. I’m not going to be another atheist you add to your list to stalk and smear. This will be the only comment I approve. The rest of your comments will be trashed without consideration. Go whine about it on your blog the way you always do. 🙂

Wow. You whined already. After your first obscene set of “errors,” I knew better than to respond. I won’t be approving any further comments from you. You’re so desperate for content on your blog that you need to “refute” what other bloggers produce. Pathetic.

Still not convinced. By you blocking me on Instagram I feel satisfied you are so inadequate to respond in a professional and factual manner that you decided to block me instead. The HONY not allowing you to comment was probably fake as well. But it’s okay I understand when someone is extremely egotistical it can be hard to feel at a loss for words for simple questions.

You’re still not convinced because you’re an obstinate believer. It’s not that the arguments aren’t good; it’s not that you can refute the scholarship cited; it’s not that you can make a better case for the historical reliability of the Gospels and the existence of the Gospel Jesus; it’s that you’ll reject anything that counters your beliefs. I must be wrong because you’ve already found the “truth.” You can’t find what you haven’t sought.

If you are who I think you are, I blocked you because you’re snarky and there can’t be a productive conversation between us. If you were kind enough to provide me with an email address, I’ll send you a screenshot, which says “Comment Blocked: Your comment could not be posted. We restrict certain content and actions to protect our community. Tell us if you think we made a mistake.” To protect our community? In other words, to protect oversensitive believers from valid criticism. Rest assured, I cannot comment on that HONY post anymore. Plenty of other people tagged me in responses and I was powerless to respond to them; Christians have a long history of silencing their opponents. I’m just glad they can no longer put me to death. Silence me on a meaningless Instagram post, but you can’t silence me here nor will you silence me when I write books countering your beliefs.

The post is nonsense. The Pastor profiled him. He saw someone who looked “thuggish” and made assumptions about him. What’s more is that their guesswork is sometimes right. Sometimes people like that young man are on a destructive path. Other times they’re wrong! I should know because I attended churches like that.

I once brought my friend’s mom to church. She was touched and went up for prayer. My ex pastor “prophesied” and said that god would deliver her from drug addiction. Unfortunately, she never touched a drug in her life! She was never an addict. She was *not* on a destructive path. She was so upset; she never came back. Charismatic Pentecostal churches are more like cults; there were plenty of Christians voicing their disagreement with that post.

Sure, I went a step further: I stated that Christianity isn’t true. When you consider that there’s no historical evidence for the Jesus in the Gospels and more importantly, his resurrection and ascension, the conclusion is inescapable. From the Apostle’s Creed to the Nicene Creed, the common denominators are the historicity of the Gospel Jesus (not just any Jesus), his resurrection, and his ascension to the right hand of the father. These are simply beliefs and not historical facts, which is a glaring problem for your religion whether you admit it or not.

Lastly, you didn’t ask questions. You beat your chest and made assertions. You claimed that the other guy “refuted” a 20+ page argument with a mere assertion that basically said: the fact that an x can’t be shown to exist in relation to y doesn’t mean that x doesn’t exist; in other words, that god can’t be shown to exist in relation to the Earth doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist. Yet on Judaism and Christianity, god created the Earth. Modern science tells us that planets have no creator; they form naturally over an extended period of time. The history of our planet doesn’t resemble anything mentioned in the Bible. By extension, god doesn’t exist in relationship to the universe; he didn’t create it. A whiff of modern cosmology can tell you that.

That’s another reason I blocked you: you are utterly incapable of understanding my arguments and so you depended on a pretentious undergrad who thought he did. His assertion is not enough to refute my argument. In fact, all he’s concluding is the opposite of what he misunderstood as my conclusion. My actual conclusion is this: x does not exist in relation to y iff it is necessary that x exist in relation to why. If god did not create the Earth or the universe, he doesn’t exist in relation to either, and by extension, doesn’t exist; however, on Christianity, it is *necessary* that he does. Or is he not a necessary being on your view?

The pretentious fool could have commented under my Argument From Cosmology; he didn’t. Perhaps he saw the breadth of my posts and realized that he’s in over his head. In any case, that’s not a rebuttal; that’s mere disagreement with a misreading of my conclusion. “I doubt you’re more advanced than me,” the arrogant fool said. That’s why I blocked him too; I don’t deal with pretentious undergrads who think they know it all. He doesn’t reach my toes in philosophy and I just showed you that.

You’re not the first person to discover that David Marshall is dishonest.

I posted an essay a while back documenting a couple dozen obvious — repeat, obvious! — falsehoods in his book about the new atheism, and Marshall responded to some of those allegations by simply conjuring up even more falsehoods, some of which were even more blatant than his original falsehood. It’s like Marshall was *trying* to look dishonest.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the essay. Once you read it, you’ll think twice before ever trusting him again.